wrote: Volinovia The ICJ has asked nations their issues on the treaty. Most responses come to. "The Enemy has No Rights."
The ICJ has not made many house calls. Strong-Arming is necessary to keep the ICJ afloat. The ICJ does not go in without due process. The ICJ currently has 4 judges that will debate on each situation on a case by case basis. The court looks at it from every angle. Pardoning Socialist Shinnokawese Troops yesterday after firing upon a Green Cross convoy.
The ICJ has not had a case in which a nation at war was not a signatory of the Laws of War, each nation that is in an ongoing conflict is usually pressured by us and the international community as a whole. Which has worked to secure many signatory nations. We also know that a nation's sovereignty is crucial to a nation. Which is why it is a recognized term for defense in court. Which can be argued in a trial. We understand that each case is different, just like every situation. We do not go in to make house calls unless it is the only option for most wanted criminals, of which there haven't been in a minute. There was one War Criminal who's name was known throughout the world and that was the one time that the then Green Cross made a house call. But the Green Cross has stepped back from military roles to be a humanitarian organization and the ICJ has taken it's place as the judges, enforcers, and peacekeepers.
We pride ourselves in being unbiased, if we were biased then it wouldn't be justice, would it? The situation you cited as being the reason you would not sign is rare, probably rarer then international piracy.
Gunichatara thanks Volinovia for providing a strict and straight answer to the question we posed so long ago.
As stated, Gunichatara will refrain from signing for the time being, if nothing else to avoid looking like a hypocrite. We wish to see how this organization will operate in the long-run, but this insight into its procedures has given us good hope in its success.